On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> FUSE is great, but... > >> > >> It means interoperability must be an explicit planned-in-advance action: > >> if a datastore is already on a removable device in your pocket, and you > >> need to access something on a foreign system, you are stuck unless there > >> is some minimal level of human interpretability of the file system... > >> > >> Instead, you have to dig up a system with FUSE/olpcfs installed, and > >> then copy the files to a conventional file structure. > >> > >> This is the use case that's hard to get around. > > > > Ok, I think I see now where is the misunderstanding. > > > > In the first post in this thread, I tried to explain that this > > proposal would use removable devices in the same way they are used in > > other systems and that the DS would have nothing to do with them: > > I think expanding the space available to the DS through usb devices or > sd cards is a use case we should take in consideration when designing > the DS, even if we don't plan to support it right now.
Sure, but we already know that we need a DS that supports different backends with different on-disk layouts, right? Unless we can find an equally efficient, robust and "transparent" layout that works in all file systems including vfat. In many areas, we have over-engineered because we tried to achieve long-term goals in a short period of time with very few resources. This has been one of the reasons why we have failed to deliver a satisfactory solution to more basic goals. I'm not against discussing the future, but I would like to advocate for doing the basics well before investing too much effort in the "turing prize features". Thanks, Tomeu _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
